| Description: |
Denice L. Patrick (WSBA No. 11655, admitted 1981), of Lynnwood, was suspended for two years, effective November 23, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. The discipline was based on her conduct between 1992 and 1996 involving lack of diligence; failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; multiple conflicts of interest; false statements to a tribunal; false or misleading communications about her services; commission of criminal acts; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and statements implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency.
In December 1991, Ms. Patrick began work as a staff attorney with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Social Security Administration (SSA). In September 1992, SSA approved a request by Ms. Patrick to establish a private law practice. In the request, Ms. Patrick specifically promised that she would do only pro bono bankruptcy work and a “miniscule” amount of legal work for family and friends, and that at no time would her private practice result in a conflict of interest in fact or appearance. SSA’s permission for Ms. Patrick to do so was subject to 17 conditions, which included avoiding any actual conflict of interest or the appearance thereof, not knowingly instructing persons on any particular matter pending before SSA/OHA, and not performing legal work on cases involving Social Security benefits or causes of action where the United States is a party or has an interest, or any other prohibited representational activities. Ms. Patrick resigned from her job with SSA in May 1996. Prior to her departure, Ms. Patrick had expanded her private practice beyond the approved scope without notifying SSA of the change in her activities or seeking to amend her request. During the period of her employment with SSA, Ms. Patrick engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:
• Falsely stating in a Yellow Pages advertisement and falsely informing potential clients that she was a “former” SSA attorney, and falsely informing potential clients that she had successfully represented other claimants.
• Representing four individuals with claims against SSA in contravention of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205, and without providing the clients with full disclosure of the material facts or obtaining written consent from SSA and from each client.
• Representing clients in a bankruptcy proceeding in which SSA was a creditor without providing the clients with full disclosure of the material facts and obtaining written consent from SSA and from the clients.
• Representing 24 bankruptcy clients, all with debts owed to the United States, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205.
• In order to avoid having to appear as a claimant’s lawyer at an OHA hearing while still employed by OHA, falsely informing OHA that a client wanted her hearing date continued, and falsely informing the client that she had to reschedule the hearing date due to a conflicting commitment, despite knowing that the client did not want a continuance of her hearing.
• In three instances, signing and filing (and in one case postdating) Appointment of Representative forms that falsely stated she was not prohibited from representing the claimants as a current or former employee of the federal government.
• Informing undercover agents with the Office of the Inspector General of the SSA that she was a former employee of SSA and still had friends at that agency who could expedite her clients’ matters and obtain more favorable results for her clients.
Ms. Patrick’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure of material facts; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; RPC 7.1, prohibiting a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services; RPC 8.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act (here, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205) that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 8.4(e), prohibiting a lawyer from stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Ms. Patrick. Lish Whitson was the hearing officer. |